Based on current U.S. subsidies to promote non-CO2 emission vehicle purchases, what would be the cost to the U.S. taxpayers for supporting a goal of avoiding a +0.01°C global warming increase?

The answer? Over $40 trillion.

To simplify this example, we compare a modern all-electric vehicle (aEV), the Nissan Leaf, to a modern high MPG gas vehicle, the Nissan Versa. Customers are provided a very large tax subsidy for the former, while the latter receives none. (Substitute any all-electric vehicle for the aEV Leaf and any high MPG gas auto for the Versa and the issues remain the same.)

In order to achieve the goal of 0.01°C potential reduction in global warming, how many Leafs would need to be bought instead of the Versa vehicle? And how much would that cost the American taxpayers?

Summary: Some 5.6 billion Leafs would need to be purchased, putting Americans on the the hook for $42 trillion in subsidies.

For those interested, we now go to the arithmetic behind those two answers. (Here is a different analysis approach to the same issue.)

The modern gasoline Nissan Versa achieves a 35mpg rating; with each gallon burnt producing 19 pounds of CO2. If on average, each Versa is driven 12,000 miles per year, a total of 342.85 gallons would be consumed. That amount of gas gallons equals 6,515 pounds of CO2, which converts to 2.96 metric tonnes of CO2 per year per the average driven Versa.

Since 1850, through the end of 2013, there has been 1.44 trillion metric tonnes of CO2 emissions. During that same span, the average annual global temperature has increased by +0.86°C. By dividing this temperature increase by the total metric tonnes of CO2 emissions since 1850, it is determined that one CO2 metric tonne is associated with an increased global temperature of 0.0000000000006.

Put another way, each CO2 tonne hypothetically equates with 6 ten-trillionths of a degree (C). And that means each Versa's 2.96 tonnes of emissions would hypothetically equate to a temperature impact of 18 trillionths of a degree, per year.

How many Versas would have to be sold (instead of the CO2 clean Leaf) to equate to a +0.01°C increase?

5.6 billion Versas.

Now flip the coin. To avoid a 0.01 degree increase, Americans would have to buy 5.6 billion Nissan Leafs, instead of the Versas. For Americans, that's a 'Leaf' in every pot, garage, attic, bedroom, basement and all bathrooms, so to speak. (Hey good news!...only 560 million need to be sold if each vehicle survives 10 years; of course, the batteries will wear out way before then.)

And each and every one of those Leafs would potentially get a $7,500 tax credit, paid for by the American taxpayer - amounting to a $42+ trillion cost for reducing potential warming by a hypothetical 0.01 degree.

Of course, there are other all-electric vehicles sold in the U.S. that are also available with the hefty tax credit. Since 2010, when the $7,500.00 tax credit began, there has been an estimated 100,000 all-electric vehicles sold in the US. A tiny dirt clod on the mountain of 5.6 billion needed. The aEV niche market remains very tiny, for a lot of reasons.

If the 100,000 number is accurate, then it would appear that Americans have already subsidized some $750 million on this 'green' fiasco in order to achieve a hypothetical future temperature reduction, which can't even be globally measured - that's a lot of $$$-something for absolutely climate nothing.

This is just another example of the hugely stupid and expensive 'green' policies that politicians have saddled the American taxpayer with.

Prior to this legislation being passed by legislators pressured by special interest groups, journalists could have been investigating the empirical evidence and doing the calculations themselves. Their research would have generated tough questions that could have been posed to the politicos and bureaucrats, forcing a rational and scientific debate. However, it would seem, the "journalists" did no due diligence other than reading and then reporting verbatim the press releases of special interest groups.

So, instead of $750 million flowing into research dealing with, say, children's cancer, Alzheimers, ebola and other important scientific endeavors, the hundreds of millions went to crony-capitalists and the very wealthy. Sadly, even more of this taxpayer lucre will flow for each new aEV sold with no meaningful climate result.

Helloooo, Washington D.C.... maybe new legislative commonsense rules should be imposed for any future 'green' policies and regulations to be considered.

An example: no legislation will even be considered unless the scientific empirical evidence (not computer models/simulations) confirms that any new policy/rule/subsidy will achieve a global warming reduction of at least 0.01 degree within 10 years for a cost that does not exceed $10 billion/year for taxpayers and consumers. 10 years at $10 billion is a $100 billion cost, which is still a ludicrous, mind-boggling amount for such a measly result.

(If readers have ideas for new common sense rules that Congress should commit to in order to avoid any more costly 'green' stupidity, leave a comment or two.

And BTW politicos...if wealthy Americans want to certify their own 'greeness' they can start paying for it on their own dime, not steal from the wallets of less fortunate Americans.

Note: Supposedly, the ludicrously large tax credit for all-EVs is going to expire. The likelihood of this incredible waste of taxpayer money being ended is extremely low since few Washington politicians possess the courage to vote against the powerful corporate welfare lobbyists, while also ending the subsidies to the wealthy purchasers of the Nissan Leaf, Tesla and other aEV cars.

The CO2 emissions expended to manufacture a Nissan Leaf are not included in this analysis; nor the CO2 emissions used to charge the Leaf every night/day; nor the other significant environmental impacts and costs associated with producing batteries for an aELV; nor the taxpayer loans (ie. cost) car aEV companies like Nissan received from the US government.

Download an Excel spreadsheet with pertinent data and calculations used to determine Versa CO2 production, temp impact and taxpayer dollars per 0.01 degree.

The electric car advantages that the Obama administration touts turns out to be a giant scam perpetrated by the EPA bureaucrats - you know, the same bureaucrats 'crucifying' the fossil fuel energy industry in order to make energy costs skyrocket

Read here. Numerous persons, from a wide variety of political persuasions, are making it clear they are not happy with the miles-per-gallon fraud that Obama's EPA is foisting on the public. Simply put, if an all electric vehicle has an EPA mileage rating of 99 mpg (MPGe), such as the Nissan Leaf, in reality it is only getting 36 mpg.

The EPA fraud is the improper accounting of all the fossil fuels used to produce the electricity to power an all electric car. There is a correct accounting method readily available but the Obama EPA team chose an inferior method that allows electric car firms to claim huge fraudulent mileage statistics. For the details of how the EPA fraud is done, check out these articles: here, here and here.

And btw, don't expect any of Obama's consumer protection agencies to bring the EPA up on consumer fraud charges or criminally crucify the bureaucrat scum culprits.

Conclusion: The electric car advantages are mostly illusionary, which the EPA and Obama administration knows. Instead of being honest and transparent, the EPA decided to put lipstick on the EV pig, which is not flying well with consumer advocates, so-to-speak. To determine the true MPG of an EV, divide the EPA's MPGe published figure for any electric car and then divide by 3 - voila, that gives you close to the legit MPG.

The Tesla electric car's batteries will cost $40,000 to replace when they run out of juice - how appealing are those electric car advantages at resale time?

Read here. The Tesla electric car is produced by a company run by a whiny corporate billionaire and taxpayer welfare mooch - to the tune of $450 million in U.S. taxpayer loans provided by Obama. What did Obama see in the company? Great question, and btw, don't expect the loan to be repaid, ever.

Tesla introduced their EV Roadster back in 2008 with much fanfare but in 2011 announced they would quit producing it - lackluster sales did the car in. And now the Roadster owners are finding out that if the car is parked too long the batteries go dead, for good.

The batteries represent about one-fifth the EV's sticker price, which comes out to approximately $40,000.00. Ouch!

"DON'T leave your electric car parked for too long - by the time you get back it could have turned into a $200,000 brick. Tesla owners in the US who have parked their vehicles with low battery power remaining - for as little as a week - have found their cars had become "bricks" that could not be re-charged...Electric car maker Tesla is defending claims its cars become immobilised if the battery ever becomes completely discharged. This results in a battery replacement cost of about one-fifth the car's $206,000 sticker price...Tesla owners in the US who have parked their vehicles with low battery power remaining - for as little as a week - have found their cars had become "BRICKS" that could not be re-charged."

Unfortunately, Tesla's electric car advanatges, known as batteries, are not the only expensive ones on the market. To replace battereis in any of the current EV's on the market is incredibly expensive, especially if they frequently catch fire. The good news? When it's time for resale or trade-in, the wealthy owners of these vehicles will receive just karma for leeching off the average taxpayer.

For Obama's cronies and wealthy consumers, there are definite electric car advantages - for the average taxpayer, the Volt's arithmetic is truly reeeevolting

Read here. The rash of Volt fires during early 2012 put the kibosh on sales of the electric 4-wheel barbeques, but during March 2012 they became red-hot (ooops) again. March sales figures were...ahem...'on fire' as each Chevy dealer sold at least three-quarters of a Volt each for the entire month...hot damn!

That March sales figure represents a huuuge 277% increase over the previous month sales figure! That translates to Volt sales taking a giant leap of...well...er...from 0.27 Volts per dealer to that red-hot figure of 0.76 volts per dealer. Woooweee....now we're cookin with gas batteries!

This 'Government Motors' (Uncle Sam owns 26% of GM) electric vehicle sales fiasco has been a overdone turkey for the taxpayer since Day 1. But for the wealthy who purchase this rolling $40,000+ Weber grill, they get subsidized by all the rest of us to the tune of $7,500, which Obama now wants increased to $10,000, per wealthy consumer. OMG, thank you Obamamama.

Now that is some really ugly Volt arithmetic for the average person to swallow, but wait.....it gets worse:

"The analysis includes adding up the amount of government subsidies via tax credits and direct funding for not only General Motors, but other companies supplying parts for the vehicle. For example, the Department of Energy awarded a $105.9 million grant to the GM Brownstown plant that assembles the batteries. The company was also awarded approximately $106 million for its Hamtramck assembly plant in state credits to retain jobs. The company that supplies the Volt’s batteries, Compact Power, was awarded up to $100 million in refundable battery credits (combination tax breaks and cash subsidies). These are among many of the subsidies and tax credits for the vehicle...GM has estimated they’ve sold 6,000 Volts so far. That would mean each of the 6,000 Volts sold would be subsidized between $50,000 and $250,000, depending on how many government subsidy milestones are realized."

Conclusion: The electric car advantages are real for Obama's cronies and really, really ugly for taxpayers. We are paying Government Motors between $50,000-$250,000 per Volt that GM sells for $41,000.00. Damn that car is hot!

Electric car advantages disappear for the Obama-funded Fisker EV - Consumer Reports can't complete tests of Fisker due to its failing after only 180 miles

The electric vehicle initiative from the Obama team has been a colossal example of failed leadership and the incompetence of a Democrat / liberal government. The inept Obama loaned Fisker, a Finnish company, tax-payer multi-millions to build a $100,000 plus vehicle in Finland, not in the U.S.

Obama crony capitalism at its worst

Sooo.....what could go wrong? Well, Consumer Reports discovered the real electric car "advantages" when its test Fisker EV went kaput after only 180 miles. Like all of Obama's green expenditures (billions of dollars over past three years) this was another failure that reveals why governments should not be wasting tax-payer dollars subsidizing Al Gore and wealthy consumers.

Read here and here. The Government Motors (GM) billion dollar+ electric vehicle (the Volt) is definitely not shocking the market. Obama's massive taxpayer funded EV is providing proof positive why government should not be involved in the private sector.

"It’s no longer even a real competition as the Leaf is beating the Volt more than 4 to 1. Chevy moved 302 Volts, Nissan sold 1362 Leafs. Nissan looks good by comparison to Chevy, but the number is still far short of their goal to sell half-a-million EV’s a year by 2013."

Then there has been the gawd-awful, continuous failed solar energy investments made by Team Obama. This week there came another announcement of a major taxpayer subsidized solar manufacturer being toast.

"The recent bankruptcies of solar companies Evergreen Solar and Obama extra-special-favorite Solyndra have cost taxpayers a combined $593 million. Now, the Obama administration is in the process of guaranteeing loans for $622 million more to new solar companies likewise destined to failure in competition with low-cost solar panels from China."

For taxpayers, the best way to protect themselves is to 'short' any company or industry that Obama anoints with tax monies - he is a sure bet for picking losers. Hey, a loser knows losers, no? W.P.E. yet?

Read here. Why is GM producing an ultra-expensive electric vehicle (an engineering marvel) that lacks a big market and is essentially a sales flop? Did we say massive taxpayer subsidies that guarantee profits for GM, yet?

Thanks, Obama! Just what the average American needs during an economic depression - a green "Edsel" by GM.

"This is so obvious that you’d think it might have also occurred to the people running GM. It probably did – but the reason it doesn’t matter to them is that the Volt (like the Tesla) is a taxpayer-funded money machine for GM. Even if they never sell enough cars to make an honest profit, there’s already been a huge profit to GM in the form of massive federal subsidies and of course, the massive bailout of GM itself back in 2008...Why not throw money at the electric car boondoggle? After all, it’s not GM’s money...we have a billion-dollar electric car boondoggle. And not only won’t they (GM and Tesla) take the hint and quit, they’ll keep at it – demanding more tax dollars, more subsidies, more rebates to “encourage” sales of these otherwise unsalable electric Edsels."

Read here. The Democrat spendthrifts in Congress need money, a lot of it. And as more and more people travel on bike, moped, electric cars and hybrids the DemoSpends have less tax money to play with. Thus, they are now considering a new mile-driven-tax to penalize those who were encouraged to go 'green.'

"Sen. Kent Conrad, Democrat from North Dakota, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, is expected to make a recommendation later this year on whether the federal government should drop the gas tax and implement the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax...By requiring cars to be equipped with odometer spyware that will report to authorities how many miles are driven, government is looking to toss out the old gas tax for a new miles-driven fee...“The Left is always pushing for more and more regulations, and more and more taxes. Now an insatiable Washington is looking to tax so-called green vehicles in a Big Brotheresque way,”"

Read here. The Obama administration has been pushing for manufacturers to produce more electric autos while providing ludicrously high subsidies to get consumers to buy them.(The UK is pursuing this brilliant strategy also.)

Now comes the news that replacement batteries may be needed in as little as 3 years of use and costs are going to be double the original estimate. For the world's most popular electric auto the Nissan Leaf, the cost of replacement is expected to be $31,000 or more.

Knowing that future cost, one should instead buy an inexpensive Korean auto, that will get decent gas mileage, plus save carloads of money on costly (skyrocketing?) electric charging and replacement costs of batteries, with enough left over in the end to buy a new, more efficient Korean car every three years in the process.

Read here. At least the Nissan Leaf is doing a little better (931 sold) but it's rather obvious the demand for electric cars is close to non-existent.

The Volt is sooo pathetic that GE even offered to buy 50,000 of these turkeys - crony capitalist Jeff Imelt has his head stuck so far up Obama's subsidy kiester he no longer can think like a rational business executive.

Want to buy a GM Volt or Nissan Leaf? Wait a few months and you'll get one really, really cheap on eBay. Of course, if Obama gets gas prices up to his desired level of Europe's gas prices, then eBay Volt/Leaf values may go from "really, really" to just "really."

"...how many Chevy Volts were sold [for February 2011]. The number – a very modest 281.....Nissan doesn't have anything to brag about here, either (and it avoided any mention of the Leaf sales in its press release). Why? Well, back in January, the company sold 87 Leafs. In February? Just 67.....Well, here's the big scorecard for all U.S. sales of these vehicles thus far: Volt: 928, Leaf: 173"

"None the less, the federal government keeps trying. DOE provided Nissan Motors with a $1.4 billion loan to help with the cost of manufacturing the Leaf. If Nissan is convinced that the Leaf is a next generation vehicle, it should be willing to use investor money to demonstrate that, not taxpayer dollars."

"Chevy Volt Gets panned by Consumer Reports. “When you are looking at purely dollars and cents, it doesn’t really make a lot of sense. The Volt isn’t particularly efficient as an electric vehicle and it’s not particularly good as a gas vehicle either in terms of fuel economy.”"

"Officially, the Leaf's range is 100 miles, but that's only in city driving. On a highway, it's less, much less. I got warmings after about 60 miles, and a dead battery at 82. Going 65 mpg to keep up with traffic cut my driving range...Note even if the reporter made it to a charging station,it takes 21 hours to fully recharge the Leaf on 110 volts, and 7 hours on 240 volts."

“While the Volt holds promise, it is currently projected to be much more expensive than its gasoline-fueled peers,” read a Task Force report, “and will likely need substantial reductions in manufacturing cost in order to become commercially viable.”

"The Volt is not a true electric vehicle, it is another form of hybrid, administration gave it the $7.5k credit anyway, which was wrong.....They cost twice as much as equivalent gasoline vehicles. If customers won’t pay an extra 5k for a hybrid that gets 50mpg, why will they pay an extra $15-20k for an electric one?"

"The only real downer with the Volt and other electrics is the effect of cold weather on the battery’s endurance. During my test-drive period the temperature rarely got above 20 degrees Fahrenheit, and the battery range never went higher than 26 miles."

"Lane points to a study from J. D. Power and Associates that says there will be very little demand for electric vehicles over the next decade, even with lucrative federal handouts. If coal produces the electricity that powers the electric vehicle while it runs, the reduction in greenhouse gases is negligible. Other environmental headaches include how to depose of exhausted batteries. The lack of charging infrastructure presents another problem."

Read here. Soooo, China and Japan get in a dispute about a Chinese fishing boat and the next thing the world knows, China has put an embargo on rare earth metals. These chemical elements are essential for the manufacture and maintenance of green vehicles, which especially rely on the state-of-the-art batteries and electronics that rare-metals make possible. For the unaware, China produces about 95% of the world's supply of these elements.

As this most recent example illustrates, for the U.S. government to push electric cars onto the auto produces and consumers, knowing China could easily strangle the global market with a stroke of a pen, is the height of big-government stupidity. Of course though, when it comes to stupid and moronic ideas for businesses and consumers, the liberal-left Democrats are in a class of their own.

Update: Here's a great piece on why rare earth elements are not really a rare resource but are indeed "rare" in the global marketplace. In a way, the U.S. is responsible for manufacturing a shortage in rare earth elements, which will likely continue.

Read here and here. If our recent posting on electric cars wasn't damning enough about these not-ready-for-prime-time toys, here's the clincher: we, the people, will be subsidizing the purchase of these vehicles for the rich and famous. Did we say stooopid yet?

See, we need to help reduce the self-guilt trip the wealthy have about living the good life; and, we need to raise their self-esteem if they're to survive all the future CO2-spewing their lifestyles absolutely demand. Hey, it's really, really important that they feel good about themselves! That's why Obama and the Democrats need all the taxpayers to help and sacrifice for the "poor" wealthy folks during these bad economic times.

"Bill Nye, The Science Guy, and Alyssa Milano have joined Lance Armstrong as celebs who have reserved the Leaf. Nissan spokesperson Katherine Zachary confirmed that the Tour de France extraordinaire is still in line to receive one of the first Leafs to reach U.S. shores.....The average buyer of a 2011 Nissan Leaf is a 45-year-old baby boomer.....The typical buyer has an income of about $125,000 a year.....Buyers list energy independence and environmental consciousness as primary motivators for choosing the Leaf."

"[Gov.] Bredesen (TN) said the state's $2,500 rebate, coupled with an available $7,500 federal tax credit, would "about even out the premium (charged) for an electric car" versus a car with a traditional gasoline engine.....Taxpayers will subsidize this car to about one-third of its sale price. Every time you see a Leaf drive by, you'll know someone else is driving it thanks to you. Once again, a technology and product that has no natural market is being favored by the political class at the expense of the rest of us."

All-electric cars, of course, don't require gasoline, but because they rely on batteries they need what are called "rare metals." Electric car advocates claim that we can break our dependence on Mideast oil by adopting electric cars. That might be true several decades from now, but instead of an oil dependence, electric cars would make us entirely dependent on the country that produces 96% of all rare metals - that great friend of the United States and the free world, China. Gee, that would be really stupid for the entire country's security and transportation.

Then there is the whole problem that electric cars will actually increase CO2 emissions because they need reliable power generation to recharge, and an increased power generation capacity to do so. The large increase in capacity needed can't be done by any solar/wind power combination - neither are reliable enough to do the job. Thus, it means more coal or natural gas power plants, since the anti-nuke brigade won't allow clean, reliable, non-CO2 nuclear capacity to be built. Gee, that would be really stupid for the environment.

Add to the mix that the electric cars on the drawing boards have somesignificantlimitations, including that these vehicles can only go about 100 miles per charge. It then takes up to 8 hours to fully charge one of these toys, unless you come across a fast-charging station in your neighborhood, which will get the job done in 30 minutes but will shorten the batteries normal life span. Gee, that would be really stupid for the majority of consumers.

Finally, we have a president who wants to force Americans into less than capable electric cars and at the same time wants electricity prices for consumers to "skyrocket." Gee, that combination of policies is so stupid and so anti-consumer that it only could have come from the lips of a leftist/liberal Democrat.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Update: And, let's not forget the really stupid ads that we will have to watch from companies that are using taxpayer dollars to produce electric lemons.

Read here. Obama said he would make electricity costs "skyrocket" and he knows Waxman-Markey will accomplish that. If that's the case, why would anyone buy a vehicle that relies on electricity knowing rates are going to "skyrocket"? Driving a Hummer will end up being cheaper.